DISTRIBUTION OF CHARITABLE AID.

Otago Witness, Issue 2815, 26 February 1908, Page 27

DISTRIBUTION OF CHARITABLE AID.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT.

In the Supreme Court on the 20th ins?, his Honor- Mr Justioe Williams delivered hia reserved judgment in the action brought by the Charitable Aid Board against the Benevolent Trustees, in which the court -was asked to decide which of the •two bodies held the power of distributing ohaTiUble aid over the united districts of Otago, Central Otago, ana Tuapeka. Mr Hosking, X.C.. and Mr C. G. White appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr J. A. Cook foJJ defendants. The judgment was aa follows: — ' The question in the present case is- not without difficulty, but I thmk the key of the problem! is to be found in sections 12 ard 13 of the act of 1885. Section 12 provides that exoept as thereinafter mentioned, in relation to separate institutions, the exclusive superintendence and control of every institution within a district is vested in the board. Section 13 provides that the board shall hay« the control of the distribution of charitable aid in the district \mder its direction, and may apply out of the hospital and charitable aid fund of jfche district such moneys _ms may from, time to time think require fcr the purpose. A distinction is thus made in these sections between the superintend'enee and control of institutions and the distribution of charitable aid. A similar distinction is recognised in section 24 and in section 11 of the unending act between the cost of maintaining institutions and the cost of affording charitable aid. While, therefore, section 12 contemplates that- the superintendence and control of institutions is t* b» s\ibject to sun exception, section 13 contemplates that the control of the distribuion of charitable aid in the district is to be vested in ths bo-ard without exception or qualification. The term ' charitable aid,' as used in the act, is, I think, pretty nearly ■equivalent to the term 'outdoor Telief,' *nd it seems to have been so understood by the parties to this action. Section 56 of the act, upon which the defendants rely, provides that all powers and authorities of the board ia respect of the mamtgement of any institution shall, on the incorporation thereof, na a separate institution, be transferred to ancl vested in the trustees of the institution. Th« contention of the defendants in effect ia that as at the time of their incorporation it was part of their function to distribute outdoor relief throughout the district, they ar« entitled to distribute the whole of the outdoor relief throughout the - district, and to have funds provided by the board for that purpose. To enable them to do this they must, under section 59 of the act of 1885, ascertain the total amount required everj year for outdoor relief throughout the district, and treat it as part of the. gross costs of maintenance of their institution so as to enable them to requisition the board in terms of the section. It does not follow, however, because it may be one of the functions of an institution to administer outdoor relief in the district, that the control of the distribution of outdoor relief throughout the district, given by section 13, is taken away from the beard and vested in the institut on. There is nothing in the act to prevent the board acting under section 13 If the board d-d so, and itself administered the whole of the outdoor relief, it would become unnecessary for the institution to include in its requisition under section 59 the cost of outdoor relief. If th« institution nevertheless requisitioned such cos>l> the board w.Aild be justified in refusing to_ comply with the requisition. No doubt so' long as, and to the extent which tho institution administered outdoor relief, it could under subsection 10 of seotion 62 make hylaws with respect to such adminißtra-tion, but thait does not give- it, as against the board, the exclusive right of administration throughout the district. No separate institution is entitled to a monopoly in the administration of relief of any kind. Section 31 gives the board power to establish new charitable institutions. If the establishment of a new charitable institution has the effect of diminishing the extenit of the relief necessary to be administered by an existing separate institution no right of such separate institution is thereby infringed. A fortiori where the control of the distribution of outdoor relief in the d ; strict is given generally to the board, no separate institution has any right to compl?,in if the board chooses itself to undertake such distribution either in whole or i.n part. I db not think, however, that the plaintff board can compel the defendant institution to distribute oudoor relief in any particular part of the district. IV would be open to the plaintiff to take uponf itself the whole of the outdoor relief in th« district. If, however, the plaintiff were to say to the defendant 'we are going to distribute relief in one part of the district, and wo leave it to you to distribute it in the other,' it would be quite competent for the defendant to decline to undertake such distribution, and to say to the board 1 that i 4 it diose itself to administer charitable relief in the district the defendant would take na , further part in such administration. If the outdoor relief is to be administered in on© part of the district by the plaintiff, and in the other by the defendant, it must be by mutual arrangement. It is to be hoped thaH some such arrangement will be arrived at. The plaintiff is entitled to an order declaring tha-t the plaintiff has the general control over the distribution of charitable aid within the united district, but to no further orde» against the defendant."